Talk:Silence (2016 film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 19:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Introduction and limitations

Before starting this review, let me first confide that I have little expertise on film analysis: I have followed several classes on film analysis and film semiotics in my student years, but I do not work in the field (and never have). Secondly, I have little understanding of the Christian faith, since I am Buddhist—but I do not have anything against Christianity either. Thirdly, this is my first review of a GA nomination, although I have nominated one GA successfully once, and written several B-class articles (on Wikiprojects that do not have A class), but all of these were articles with an average of no more than two hundred views per day.

That said, I do have a strong interest in the subject of religion in all its forms, and am interested in Scorcese's work. Also, on two separate occasions, editors have asked me to start doing good article reviews. So here goes.

Thanks for stating that at the start of the assessment. You GA experience is of value and appreciated for this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

General exploration

1. At first sight, the article is long (62 Kb). The plot synopsis is 714 words though, which is nicely done.
2. The article is very broad and covers any aspects of the subject I can think of. However, an apparently major contributor to the article has made some proposals [[Talk:Silence_(2016_film)#On_Possible_Exception_to_Article_Protection|here], which I do not think have been fully integrated in the article yet.
3. There has been quite some vandalism before, but I don't think there has been any edit-warring.
4. The article stays on focus.

--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

My numbering for my responses here will be one through four to correspond to your four points above. Your points (1) and (2) are closely related since if we bring in the proposals which were suggested in (2), then the article will get even longer than before as you point out in (1) above. Last week I did add the LA Times review to the article's reception section which I thought would be useful for future readers and editors of the article. I am fully willing to further bring in some of the other reviews proposed, and to do this promptly and with neutrality, though it will make the section longer than it is now. Just let me know which ones of the other proposed reception articles you would like added to that section in addition to the LA Times article which I had already added there last week. Regarding your #3 above, the disruptive editing from last April has subsided and is not an issue at this time. The article appears to be stable for readers and editors. Thanks for your comment on #4 and I will try to further trim the plot section as you requested in #1 above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Main issues that need resolving

JohnWickTwo, I was merely giving you first impression. You are too fast, haha. I will give more detail now. To start with, this film is about very complex and multi-layered themes, but the article has tackled many of it. It is quite comprehensive and good to read. Nevertheless, there are still some parts that need to be fixed or that are lacking.

1. The article is longer than the standard maximum (40 kb), but i think this is justified. However, what is less justified is that the article uses quotes a little too much, often people are quoted extensively, even when their words do not anything to what a summary could say. I think a quote on a Wikipedia article should have an element of creative or unique wording to it, as to justify its inclusion. There are a number of quotes that seem redundant. For example, in the section Silence (2016 film)#Legal challenges quotes would only be required for the phrases "media stunt" and "meritless" action". It is not necessary to quote what a company says about an amount of money, if that same statement could simply be paraphrased briefly. Some of the quotes, such as the one from Scorsese at the beginning of Silence (2016 film)#Development is too lengthy and could be partly paraphrased. And although many of the quotes in the Silence (2016 film)#Critical response section are justified and well worth the read, a few of them are redundant, as they don't add anything new.

Long Scorsese quote has been shortened by half in development section. Shortening one of the quotation in response section also. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Great! Nice work. I do still think Silence_(2016_film)#Casting and Silence_(2016_film)#Filming need further trimming or paraphrasing of quotes. Briefly paraphrasing, preferably.

Both of these sections have been further shortened. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You are of course completely right in saying that you cannot add to an article that is already too long, but as it stands, the article can be overly detailed at times, e.g. it may not be necessary to actually describe the ambient sounds on the sound track in the Silence (2016 film)#Music section, and the second paragraph of the Silence (2016 film)#Release section includes a detailed timeline that may not be that relevant.

Shortened description of ambient sounds in music section. Shortened wording of release details not needed in section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Nicely done.

2. After having seen the film just now, I must say that there may be a few topics you might want to address and, yes, add to the article, if reliable sources can be found on this:

• is the film accurately portraying the novel? How does it relate or differ from the previous film? (Not much discussed.)

Adding a quote of a professor of English who has written that Scorsese's depiction is accurate to the book as a reliable source with link. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Not much, but okay.

There is an important difference mentioned here. Even Scorsese likes happy endings.

This has been added as a second source in the writing section since he mentions the film as a "faithful" version of the book. Could you give me a 1-2 sentence quote from the Project Muse article for the "happy ending" you mention and add it here on the talk page? JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That's good, but the point is not so much whether the film is an authentic depiction of the book. I haven't seen that question asked by any secondary source. The point is merely to describe the differences: there is no authenticity issue here. The article in question doesn't question the movie's authenticity, nor its accuracy for that matter , it merely states it ends slightly different, e.g. the dead padre is holding a cross. Such differences may be due too interpretation, synthesis, simplification, we do not know. We simply describe the differences.

Good point and it is now included in the writing section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

An article in The New Yorker compares the ending with the cross in Father Rodriguez' hand with the Rosebud from Citizen Kane. Could be interesting.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• how did Japan respond to the film? Did they feel the movie did justice to their culture and religion? E.g. see this Wikipedia article for an example of such responses.

The film and Endo novel are accepted as historically accurate depictions of early 17th century Japan and its politics. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Any sources on that?

Both references, including the one you just cited from Project Muse, are included in the writing section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• how did Christian media respond? E.g. see here for Christian responses to another religious movie.

Including added theological critical review from Notre Dame University as a reliable source for the theology in the film with link. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice. I think that makes the "however" in the next paragraph obsolete.

Word 'however' dropped now. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You might want to add more about Christian perspectives from this article.

Do you want a second theological source added to the reception section in addition to the one added yesterday. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Up to you, it's not a major issue. Just thought it was a good source, but perhaps it is too much theology for the article.

I have also noticed that the article does not quote any books or scholarly comments, even though a Google Scholar search does render quite some hits that are freely accessible. On a similar note, a list of books on the topic can be accessed through Google Books. I am not sure whether the sources mentioned on the Talk Page add anything useful, but just like Google Books and Google Scholar, it should be looked into to get a complete article.

Tonight I have added two scholars to the article from Dordt College and the University of Notre Dame for scholarly opinion on the film. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, good. I have also added some suggested references on the talk page.

Thus, you might want to cut down a little on the detail of the timeline and events leading up to the release of the movie, and see if some more context can be added from responses and scholarly reflection. My first impression was that the article stayed on focus, but now I realize the huge scope of the film and the topics, I think the article needs some adjustments in this regard. That said, I do think the article's Silence (2016 film)#Critical response section is excellently written, and provides many avenues for reflection for the reader.

Both you and I seem to think this section on response to be more or less adequate. I have added a short theological assessment from the University of Notre Dame to slightly enhance the theological assessment of the film with reliable sources as you requested. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I will give more details of each section later, but this is the main gist we need to work on. Maybe there are many negatives here, but then again, it is quite a challenging subject, and as you can see below, we're halfway there.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Several additions to the article were made with some abridgements to the article as well, which I have marked above with comments interspersed within your assessment commentary above. Let me know which sections to address next in order. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that in the below section.

Comment - I would love to see a section on the #THEMES (lol) of this movie. No, seriously, I think it would be appropriate. There's a pretty good interview with Scorsese in Film comment that could be used for expansion. Also this review from Andrew Tracy is pretty excellent IMHO (ditto Adam Nayman). FWIW Gertanis (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Theme section is an interesting thought. I'll try to return to this item in the next day or two. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Good suggestion.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You might also want to add content about the movie's themes from [the book "A Companion to Martin Scorsese"].

[Deleted my earlier comment.] You could add a final section with interpretations. Although this section may not be as large as in some other ground-breaking films, it could be expanded later as more studies appear on Silence. The sources above would make for a good start of an "Interpretations" section.--Farang Rak Tham (talk)

Themes that seems to be much discussed in secondary sources are the nature of religious faith and doubt, the silence of God (probably what the film's name is referring to), the comparison with Jesus' life, etc.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Details per section

There are a number of details that I have not mentioned yet, and which do not really impact the assessment as a GA that much, but still are relevant enough to mention. I will also try to go through all the editing you have been doing, that have certainly improved the article:

1. the article has a number of duplicate wikilinks in the main body of the text: Cristóvão Ferreira, which by the way should be wikilinked from the start of the synopsis; apostasy; Shutter Island; Shūsaku Endō.
2. Taiwan need not be linked, as it is a well-known country.

Lead

1. "On April 19, 2013, it was announced that Scorsese would begin production on Silence in 2014. Irwin Winkler was then announced as a producer, as were Randall Emmett and George Furla, who would provide financing through their company Emmett/Furla Films. Soon thereafter, it was announced that the film would be shot in Taiwan." ==> The verb announce is used three times in a row.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Plot

1. "The story is set in the time of Kakure Kirishitan ("Hidden Christians")" is confusing, because it is not actually the name of a period, but a historical social phenomenon. I'd rephrase along the lines of "The story is set in the time when it had become common for Christians to hide from persecution (Japanese: Kakure Kirishitan, literally 'hidden Christians')"
2. "following the suppression of the Shimabara Rebellion (1637–1638) of Japanese Roman Catholics..." rephrase as "the suppression of Japanese Roman Catholics during the Shimabara Rebellion (1637–1638)"
3. "Father Ferreira": you might want to consider using padre instead, as the movie does, and add (Father) the first time you use Padre.

Staying with "Father" for now not only for consistency within this section, but also consistency with the other sections of the article and the reviews in the reception section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The reasons you give are hard to follow, but if you think staying with Father makes the article more intelligible for the English-speaking world, I am okay with that.

1. "The bodies are then cremated on a funeral pyre so that they cannot be granted a Christian burial." sounds like in-universe bias. May have been motivated by other reasons, such as practical or cultural. You might want to rephrase as "which the Padres understand is done to prevent a Christian burial"
2. "unmerciful to refuse to recant" may be confusing. Elucidate a bit here.

Less confusing when changed to 'self-centered' instead of 'unmerciful'. 17:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)17:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)~~

1. "apostasy" is wikilinked, but should also be explained briefly inline.
2. "after agreeing again to step on a fumi-e: delete the word again, as the first time is no longer in the plot summary.
3. "He then sees the desperate Garupe himself futilely drown..." it seems to me he was forced to drown. Might want to rewrite.
4. "As Rodrigues looks upon a fumi-e": foreign words need to be italicized each time.
5. "Kichijiro later is caught with a religious amulet he claims to have won while gambling, but never bothered to look inside the pouch." Grammar is a little off, the pouch should be the subject of the sentence from the first part of the sentence onward.

I will continue tomorrow. Thanks for all the efforts.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

These ten edits are now in the text. Ready for the next set of edits. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to be early tomorrow. Too bad there are time zones on our planet.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Cast

Is it possible to merge content with the section Silence (2016 film)#Casting? You can also add more content about the actors' views and experiences with regard to their roles, e.g. from this source i have listed on the top of the talk page. You should mention Garfield's intense preparation to his role, which, apart from the America Magazine source, can also be retrieved from this interview with Scorsese on Youtube and this interview on Stephen colbert's Late Show. I have also seen interviews with the other actors on Youtube: e.g. an interview with Driver—there are probably also articles about those on the Internet.

Section expanded for material dealing with the two lead roles, and amplify involvement of Father Martin in their preparation to the roles. There is difference in filmmaking between discussions of 'casting' as a part of the filmmaking process, and the discussion of 'cast' as referencing actors and their acting methods used for their artistry. For now, it makes sense to maintain this distinction in this article as well. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I was almost done searching for sources, then i found this interview with Tsukamoto. Maybe a few lines in here you can use.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Of interesting note, Liam Neeson also played a budding Jesuit missionary in "The Mission" , which took a far more liberal and idealistic perspective of missionary interactions in South America. 2602:306:34AB:CF60:C2F:C34D:6B61:5066 (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting point. This could also be discussed in one of the concluding sections. I believe it has been discussed in secondary sources, as it sounds familiar to me.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Development

1. "the vignettes in Kurosawa's film Dreams": Dreams needs to be disambiguated.
2. More on Scorsese's thoughts about the film can be found in this interview, and also in this and this interview.

The image has been changed to favor Scorsese as director of this film. Let me know if more is useful for the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

1. "Father James Martin, a Jesuit priest, worked closely with the filmmakers to ensure an accurate portrayal of the Jesuits.": Father James' credentials and role seems a bit understated. From what I can gather, he is quite a notable writer in Jesuit circles—he pretty much "wrote the book" on it. He also had a major role in preparing Garfield for his role, guiding him as a mentor in practicing Jesuit exercises for a full year, about which Garfield states he did not doing anything else. More about this in this source.

The descriptions of Father Martin have been expanded both in the cast section, and in the biographical statements I have added about him as being a recognized and published Jesuit scholar. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Great work. After re-reading this section, I feel that the reason why Scorsese wanted to make the film in the first place, and why he postponed the film throughout his life are still not clear. His own life, for exanple his childhood wish to become a missionary, also played a role. Perhaps the interviews I linked above will help clear this up, but it may also be found in other sources. You could also add some of Scorsese's motivations in an "Interpretations" section, as I mentioned above.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Analysis section added this morning. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Legal challenges

1. "According to the company, in 1990 Scorsese signed a written agreement to direct Silence. Scorsese was supposed to shoot the film": propose to cut down to ""According to the company, in 1990 Scorsese signed a written agreement to shoot the film"
2. "(...) agreed to pay "substantial compensation and other valuable benefits" to direct The Departed, Shutter Island, and Hugo.": add first at the end.

Both now addressed in text of article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Challenges should perhaps be rephrased per WP:EUPHEMISM.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
2. I think there may be a few points missing regarding legal issues. More about that here.

Casting

1. Nicely trimmed. You could consider merging with section Cast.

Would like to keep both sections given the newly expanded material in the cast section above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

1. "In 2010, del Toro partially distanced himself..." I am not certain how this quote is relevant. Perhaps this was in the article before the film was finished?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Filming

1. Nicely shortened, but still, I would paraphrase it entirely, since quoting doesn't really add anything valuable.

Section wording now shortened. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter article I linked above contains some information not in the article yet. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Release

1. "Scorsese brokered several distribution..." This paragraph should be shortened, it is less relevant than the rest of the article.
2. "...which expanded to nearly 800 theaters..." Perhaps this is a stupid question coming from someone uninitiated, but what are we counting here? Theaters in the States? In the world?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Section has been furthered abridged. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Home media

1. I am not sure what is customary in articles on films, but it would seem to me this section could be merged with the sections on Release and Critical response. It seems a little odd to read how the DVD was reviewed, before reading about the actual theater review.

Critical response

I just noticed you haven't written anything about the quality of the acting yet. In general, it seems the Asian actors were more appreciated than the American, it seems. E.g. this Guardian article, whic is different from the one already quoted.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

More criticism on the film in this article.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Another review has been added and there is now an analysis section which I added which includes further reviews of themes. Are more reviews needed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, we can leave it out for now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• The article is generally well written, but the Reception section is IMHO the weakest one. It seems merely to reiterate what the critics have said, with no thematic cohesion. See Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections: It would be better to paraphrase the reviews, with a flowing narrative of what the critics in general seemed to pick up on. Also Earwig's copyvio tool gives 79.8 %—you might want to trim the quotes. --Gertanis (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Accolades

This content has been almost completely split off into a separate article. Still, would it possible to summarize the content briefly in prose rather than list?

Previous version has been supplemented. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Nicely done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

See also

"Silence (1971 film), an earlier version by Masahiro Shinoda.": not quite clear. Write instead "an earlier film adaptation of Shūsaku Endō's novel, by Masahiro Shinoda"

Pictures

It seems to me the Van Gogh painting is a little off-topic. Also, the article does not contain a picture of Scorsese yet .

A Scorsese image is an enhancement worth adding in the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Great!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I will go through the sources once more to see if we missed anything.

Week-end progress

@Farang Rak Tham: Article seems ready for next set of comments and suggestions. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have given several comments, starting with the part on themes. Search for today's date and you'll find the comments easily.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

JohnWickTwo, I think we are almost finished here. You have obviously worked hard to improve the article, and I think it looks very good now. Just noticed that you've brought in quite a number of quotes with the last edits. Although personally I do not think the quotes bother me, it could get the article tagged later on for over-using quotes, which would effectively downgrade the article back to B quality. For example, I think it is perfectly fine, when you find a number of reliable sources stating that the Asians acted the best, to simply state that "film critics felt that" and then paraphrase. Unless you do think no-one shares the same opinion on the acting, in which case, maybe better leave it out because it would not be relevant enough.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Overnight I have added another half dozen edits to the article given your helpful links and suggestions, and I'll continue with the other links you provided. It is occurring to me that if all of the links you have provided are added to this article, then it is likely that the article will at some point be moving more in the direction of an FA review than a GA review. That's ok with me and I will keep editing in the enhancements, though at some point you might want to consider if the GA-criteria have been met at some level for promotion, and then I can continue with the further enhancements using your many useful links and comments for a possible further promotion in the future. If you have a list of after week-end edits for me to address then just list them below and I'll try to get to them later today or tomorrow. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

JohnWickTwo, I think you are right, and I was thinking last night that I had taken it a little too far. I just want to make sure we are not overlooking anything. I have seen you have been doing some good edits with regard to the cast and other sections, so at the end of this evening I will review which of the above issues would remain for GA status, if any.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Wrap-up

JohnWickTwo, just a few notes to end the review with:

• Instead of calling the section "Legal complaint", what do you think of legal claims or legal problems? Or perhaps you can think of a better word. Complaint seems a little understated.
• As Gertanis mentioned, the structure of the section Critical response may not be transparant yet. What I mean by that is that each paragraph deals with different aspects of the film, but this may not be so clear to the reader. To indicate more structure you could use connector sentences like "Apart from the storytelling, the film was also praised for its artistic qualities", etc., although you might not exactly use this example, of course.

I think the section Critical response still contains a little too much quotes and too little summary (which doesn't mean the quotes are too long, it just means that it would have been better to paraphrase them). But considering the complexity of the subject matter and the creativity of the quotes cited, I think it is okay to leave it like this for now, provided you add in the connector sentences.

• Some text above I haven't put in strikethrough—these suggestions can be used to improve the article further when you have time. However, i don't think they are required for GA either.

Waiting for these final points to wrap up. Nice work. i like it that you didn't separate the religious criticism as some articles do, and just put it all together. It should be better that way.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: The bridging sentences are now added into the reception section, and your extra links are appreciated for future enhancement. Let me know what you think. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, JohnWickTwo, we should be done now. Good work improving the article, and thanks for letting me take part in that. Good luck with FA!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed